Gosh, It Appears A Good Guy With A Gun -

[GaryDog]

What it shows is that to stop a killer with a gun, the best method to do that is having a gun yourself....now if the government wants to provide every citizen the same level of protection as the President has...then we could talk about not needing to carry a weapon ourselves...till then.......back off gun grabber....

Sure, if you have countless hours of weapons training, police training, and your job is specifically to remain vigilant to threats.

Just "having a gun" is a miniscule part of this.

 

[GaryDog]

What it shows is that to stop a killer with a gun, the best method to do that is having a gun yourself....now if the government wants to provide every citizen the same level of protection as the President has...then we could talk about not needing to carry a weapon ourselves...till then.......back off gun grabber....

false ! it shows trained agent of the law doing there job.
not joe and his buddy's patrolling the neighborhood for imagined terrorist...
I never back off from the facts,

Yes....trained Secret Service agents did their job....tell me....do you have around the clock Secret Service protection? If not...who will protect you when the bad guys come for you?


That is why we support normal, law abiding people carrying guns for self defense......

Please. You don't have half the free world and most of the third world wishing for your death. Nobody knows who the hell you are. Therefore you don't need secret service protection.

Does this really need to be said? Are you that fucking stupid?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Every mass shooting has only ended when a good guy appears with a gun.

 

[GaryDog]

Every mass shooting has only ended when a good guy appears with a gun.

Uh, no.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Every mass shooting has only ended when a good guy appears with a gun.

Uh, no.

Of all the mass shootings which one did not?

 

[GaryDog]

Every mass shooting has only ended when a good guy appears with a gun.

Uh, no.

Of all the mass shootings which one did not?

In the Thurston school shooting, unarmed students took him down
At Columbine they shot themselves, and in fact an armed security guard was forced to flee.
Va Tech kid shot himself.
Sandy Hook shooter shot himself.

Matter of fact, MOST of the shooters don't get taken down by anyone with a gun.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Every mass shooting has only ended when a good guy appears with a gun.

Uh, no.

Of all the mass shootings which one did not?

In the Thurston school shooting, unarmed students took him down
At Columbine they shot themselves, and in fact an armed security guard was forced to flee.
Va Tech kid shot himself.
Sandy Hook shooter shot himself.

Matter of fact, MOST of the shooters don't get taken down by anyone with a gun.

They all shot themselves because a gun held by a good guy was pointed at them.

 

[GaryDog]

Every mass shooting has only ended when a good guy appears with a gun.

Uh, no.

Of all the mass shootings which one did not?

In the Thurston school shooting, unarmed students took him down
At Columbine they shot themselves, and in fact an armed security guard was forced to flee.
Va Tech kid shot himself.
Sandy Hook shooter shot himself.

Matter of fact, MOST of the shooters don't get taken down by anyone with a gun.

They all shot themselves because a gun held by a good guy was pointed at them.

LMAO, also false. Both Columbine shooters were dead by the time the cops laid eyes on them. Lanza was shooting himself by the time the cops ran his license plate.

You're throwing out wild guesses that reinforce your retarded worldview. It's called confirmation bias. Look it up, stupid.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Every mass shooting has only ended when a good guy appears with a gun.

Uh, no.

Of all the mass shootings which one did not?

In the Thurston school shooting, unarmed students took him down
At Columbine they shot themselves, and in fact an armed security guard was forced to flee.
Va Tech kid shot himself.
Sandy Hook shooter shot himself.

Matter of fact, MOST of the shooters don't get taken down by anyone with a gun.

They all shot themselves because a gun held by a good guy was pointed at them.

LMAO, also false. Both Columbine shooters were dead by the time the cops laid eyes on them. Lanza was shooting himself by the time the cops ran his license plate.

You're throwing out wild guesses that reinforce your retarded worldview. It's called confirmation bias. Look it up, stupid.

You lefties love rewriting history. They all shot themselves because they were cornered by good guys with guns and could not murder anymore.

And you freaks hate it when evil is stopped.

 

[daws101]

nope, you're saying I said that.

I was asking you if that's what you mean...that's the whole purpose of a question mark. Duh.

So why did you bring up the shooter's race if it's not relevant?

More importantly answer these 2 SIMPLE questions:

1) Was the guy justified in shooting the shooter?

2) Did a person LEGALLY carrying a firearm potentially save the lives of others from a criminal?

I did not bring up race as it was obvious from the photo he was black .
fail
2. your question was not an honest one by assuming I was making a value judgment any answer I mignt have given ,that did not agree with your preconceived idea would be taken as false.
1, shooting a bad guy needs no justification
2, the answer is obvious .

You brought up race in this thread-nobody else did.

I'm just curious as to why, since the shooting appears not to be motivated by race whatsoever?

In fact we don't even know the race of the guy who shoot him, because it's never mentioned (he very well could be black).

Also the article doesn't mention that he's black (they mention he shot people and posted a picture of him-and he's obviously black), but they don't go even mention his race at all.

could you make any less sense?

My post was grammatically correct and coherent, if you would like for me to start correcting your posts for grammar and comprehension-I will be more than glad to (after all I do it for a living).

1) Why did you mention/bring up race in this thread? What was the purpose?

2) The article does NOT mention the shooter's race whatsoever

3) The article does NOT mention the other person's race whatsoever (therefore we don't know what race he is)

4) The article does show a picture of the person, who is obviously black

I never made mention of the good guy's race.
as for the spell and grammar Nazi antics ,it an indicator of losing the argument.
btw I have already answered you questions.

 

[mgh80]

stopped a bad guy with a gun.

Imagine that.

Video Shows How Secret Service Stopped Potential Attack Outside White House

It's the job of the secret service's job to do just that .
If the headline read a senior citizen stops potential attack on white house .
It would be interesting.

It's not the White House, but here's an example of a responsible citizen carrying who saved lives:

Lyman man arrested after firing shots outside club; 3 people hurt

in south Carolina shooting at black people is a sport ,,,
thanks for playing,
the op is talking about the secret service doing it's job, it is not talking about Billy bob playing cop.

I was asking you if that's what you mean...that's the whole purpose of a question mark. Duh.

So why did you bring up the shooter's race if it's not relevant?

More importantly answer these 2 SIMPLE questions:

1) Was the guy justified in shooting the shooter?

2) Did a person LEGALLY carrying a firearm potentially save the lives of others from a criminal?

I did not bring up race as it was obvious from the photo he was black .
fail
2. your question was not an honest one by assuming I was making a value judgment any answer I mignt have given ,that did not agree with your preconceived idea would be taken as false.
1, shooting a bad guy needs no justification
2, the answer is obvious .

You brought up race in this thread-nobody else did.

I'm just curious as to why, since the shooting appears not to be motivated by race whatsoever?

In fact we don't even know the race of the guy who shoot him, because it's never mentioned (he very well could be black).

Also the article doesn't mention that he's black (they mention he shot people and posted a picture of him-and he's obviously black), but they don't go even mention his race at all.

could you make any less sense?

My post was grammatically correct and coherent, if you would like for me to start correcting your posts for grammar and comprehension-I will be more than glad to (after all I do it for a living).

1) Why did you mention/bring up race in this thread? What was the purpose?

2) The article does NOT mention the shooter's race whatsoever

3) The article does NOT mention the other person's race whatsoever (therefore we don't know what race he is)

4) The article does show a picture of the person, who is obviously black

I never made mention of the good guy's race.
as for the spell and grammar Nazi antics ,it an indicator of losing the argument.
btw I have already answered you questions.

You did mention the shooter's race...unless you go on every thread and talk about people in SC shooting black people?

 

[daws101]

stopped a bad guy with a gun.

Imagine that.

Video Shows How Secret Service Stopped Potential Attack Outside White House

It's the job of the secret service's job to do just that .
If the headline read a senior citizen stops potential attack on white house .
It would be interesting.

It's not the White House, but here's an example of a responsible citizen carrying who saved lives:

Lyman man arrested after firing shots outside club; 3 people hurt

in south Carolina shooting at black people is a sport ,,,
thanks for playing,
the op is talking about the secret service doing it's job, it is not talking about Billy bob playing cop.

I did not bring up race as it was obvious from the photo he was black .
fail
2. your question was not an honest one by assuming I was making a value judgment any answer I mignt have given ,that did not agree with your preconceived idea would be taken as false.
1, shooting a bad guy needs no justification
2, the answer is obvious .

You brought up race in this thread-nobody else did.

I'm just curious as to why, since the shooting appears not to be motivated by race whatsoever?

In fact we don't even know the race of the guy who shoot him, because it's never mentioned (he very well could be black).

Also the article doesn't mention that he's black (they mention he shot people and posted a picture of him-and he's obviously black), but they don't go even mention his race at all.

could you make any less sense?

My post was grammatically correct and coherent, if you would like for me to start correcting your posts for grammar and comprehension-I will be more than glad to (after all I do it for a living).

1) Why did you mention/bring up race in this thread? What was the purpose?

2) The article does NOT mention the shooter's race whatsoever

3) The article does NOT mention the other person's race whatsoever (therefore we don't know what race he is)

4) The article does show a picture of the person, who is obviously black

I never made mention of the good guy's race.
as for the spell and grammar Nazi antics ,it an indicator of losing the argument.
btw I have already answered you questions.

You did mention the shooter's race...unless you go on every thread and talk about people in SC shooting black people?

yes the shooter in the picture not the guy who shot him, fail.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Did you read the article? The black guy shot 3-4 people BEFORE the other guy shot him.

So you're telling me that the guy wasn't justified in shooting somebody who was actively shooting random people on a street, just because he was black?

nope, you're saying I said that.

I was asking you if that's what you mean...that's the whole purpose of a question mark. Duh.

So why did you bring up the shooter's race if it's not relevant?

More importantly answer these 2 SIMPLE questions:

1) Was the guy justified in shooting the shooter?

2) Did a person LEGALLY carrying a firearm potentially save the lives of others from a criminal?

I did not bring up race as it was obvious from the photo he was black .
fail
2. your question was not an honest one by assuming I was making a value judgment any answer I mignt have given ,that did not agree with your preconceived idea would be taken as false.
1, shooting a bad guy needs no justification
2, the answer is obvious .

You brought up race in this thread-nobody else did.

I'm just curious as to why, since the shooting appears not to be motivated by race whatsoever?

In fact we don't even know the race of the guy who shoot him, because it's never mentioned (he very well could be black).

Also the article doesn't mention that he's black (they mention he shot people and posted a picture of him-and he's obviously black), but they don't go even mention his race at all.

could you make any less sense?

That would make him a senseless libtard like you.

 

[daws101]

nope, you're saying I said that.

I was asking you if that's what you mean...that's the whole purpose of a question mark. Duh.

So why did you bring up the shooter's race if it's not relevant?

More importantly answer these 2 SIMPLE questions:

1) Was the guy justified in shooting the shooter?

2) Did a person LEGALLY carrying a firearm potentially save the lives of others from a criminal?

I did not bring up race as it was obvious from the photo he was black .
fail
2. your question was not an honest one by assuming I was making a value judgment any answer I mignt have given ,that did not agree with your preconceived idea would be taken as false.
1, shooting a bad guy needs no justification
2, the answer is obvious .

You brought up race in this thread-nobody else did.

I'm just curious as to why, since the shooting appears not to be motivated by race whatsoever?

In fact we don't even know the race of the guy who shoot him, because it's never mentioned (he very well could be black).

Also the article doesn't mention that he's black (they mention he shot people and posted a picture of him-and he's obviously black), but they don't go even mention his race at all.

could you make any less sense?

That would make him a senseless libtard like you.

how would a non sentient wad of flesh like you know the difference.